The Age of Accountability

[Eric B]

True, and the passages like Deut. 29:4, and the related ones in Isaiah, and quoted by Christ, in context (Matt.13) note v.12 "whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, but whoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he has", meaning they did have opportunity to see, but refused. So then they are hardened. This is further explained by "for this people's heart is waxed gross...and their eyes they have closed"

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by koreahog2005:
John, I respectfully disagree with you about what constitutes saving faith. The word for “faith” (“pistis”) as a verb is “believe” (“pisteuo”). Simply put, faith includes intellectual belief in Jesus, and infants are incapable of intellectual belief in Jesus. We can say that true, saving faith is more than intellectual belief, but it includes intellectual belief.

The most recent Southern Baptist confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, defines saving faith as follows:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior.

</font>[/QUOTE]So Southern Baptists are now officially Arminian? I respectfully disagree. Faith is not a human work whereby we earn grace. The Evangelical Lutheran Church's confession of faith, which has not changed since 1530 defines saving faith as follows:

Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Augsburg Confession

Infants have this saving faith when they believe that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. The children of Christians should be baptized but not because they have saving faith (which we assume they do) or because baptism saves us(which it does). We baptize infants solely because Christ commands it, "Suffer the little children to come me and forbid them not."

 

[Eric B]

The SBC is still divided. There is a large (or at leat very vocal) Calvinistic movement, including ministries like the Founders, Grace To You, etc. Each side would interpret that statement in light of their own position. So the Calvinists would say that that "faith" was given to some (and of course, withheld from others), thus maintaining the monergistic model, and agreeing with your Lutheran confession. Thus, they claim faith is a divine work, not a human one.

We baptize infants solely because Christ commands it, "Suffer the little children to come me and forbid them not."

That passage says nothing about baptism. Jesus was laying hands and praying.
It's also amazing that Lutherans could insist "Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works", yet also insist "Baptism saves". Unless you clarify that as baptism by one Spirit into one Body, upon salvation/justification by faith, and shown represented outwardly by immersion in water. It's is placement into the body of elect by the Spirit that saves, not the water ceremony. It is ridiculous to claim the "free-will/u.election" debate is what the Reformation hinged on, with the free-will advocates on Rome's side, when one takes Rome's position on baptism, which is one of the work they placed salvation on, thus denying grace/faith alone.

 

[koreahog2005]

John, I don’t think we earn salvation through faith and repentance, but faith and repentance are certainly requirements for salvation. Notice the following verses:

“ ‘If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?’ And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.’ ” (Acts 11:17-18)

“For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10)

“And he called for lights and rushed in and, trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ ” (Acts 16:29-31)

“And He said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’ ” (Luke 7:50)

“I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Salvation is a gift and cannot be earned. The decision to receive an offered gift is not a meritorious decision. I am not aware of anyone who has been awarded a medal because of his decision to receive a gift offered to him. A person under conviction by the Holy Spirit realizes that he has a deadly disease (sin) and that Jesus (the Great Physician) has the only cure. We do not have to earn the cure; we simply have to make a decision to accept it.

Receiving the gift of salvation involves surrender. This decision to surrender is also not a meritorious decision. I am not aware of any soldier who has been awarded a medal because of his decision to surrender unconditionally. An unconditional surrender involves a commitment to cease resisting (to repent) and a willingness to hand over all one has to someone acknowledged as superior and trustworthy (to have faith). Surrender involves a change in sovereignty; there is a different ruler in one’s life.

John, you said the following:

Infants have this saving faith when they believe that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. The children of Christians should be baptized but not because they have saving faith (which we assume they do) or because baptism saves us (which it does). We baptize infants solely because Christ commands it, "Suffer the little children to come me and forbid them not."

Again, infants are incapable of believing “that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.” You also said that “baptism saves us.” The baptism that saves us is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21). In other words, physical baptism doesn’t save us. Rather, an appeal to God for a good conscience is what saves us. Remember the similar passage in Hebrews 10:22:

“Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.”

Spiritual baptism saves us; physical baptism does not save anyone. Physical baptism pictures death, burial, and resurrection (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3). Those symbols are conveyed by immersion, not sprinkling. Again, baptism is an act of obedience for true disciples (followers) who have understood the gospel, surrendered their lives to Jesus in repentance and faith, and begun the spiritual growth process. Infants are incapable of understanding the gospel, surrendering their lives in repentance and faith, and learning from the Bible. When Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not" (Mark 10:14), He was not discussing baptism. He wanted to physically "touch them" as He blessed them (Mark 10:13).

Well, it's bedtime in South Korea. I'll check this thread in the morning.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Eric B:
It's also amazing that Lutherans could insist "Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works", yet also insist "Baptism saves". Unless you clarify that as baptism by one Spirit into one Body, upon salvation/justification by faith, and shown represented outwardly by immersion in water. It's is placement into the body of elect by the Spirit that saves, not the water ceremony. It is ridiculous to claim the "free-will/u.election" debate is what the Reformation hinged on, with the free-will advocates on Rome's side, when one takes Rome's position on baptism, which is one of the work they placed salvation on, thus denying grace/faith alone.

It is the Baptists who are taking Rome's position on baptism. According to the Baptists and the Papists, the act of baptism is meritorious (work righteousness).

The Papists teach that baptism is pleasing to God because of the outward act (work righteousness); faith is not necessary to apprehend the forgiveness of sins. They reject the Lutheran view that baptism is not pleasing to God but God is pleased to save us through Baptism when we believe our sins are forgiven for Christ's sake.

God does not create saving faith without means. The offices that Christ instituted (Preaching, Baptism, Absolution, and the Holy Supper) were not created to be activities of man pleasing to God but means of grace whereby the Holy Spirit creates saving faith through the Word. When Christ layed his hands on the children and blessed them, He created saving faith through His Word (Matt. 18:6).

 

[Eric B]

I've never heard any Baptist say baptism was "meritorious". It is obedience, that only has any meaning withion a context of the person actually being saved by faith. Just alike any other command in itself. No Baptist says that any work is pleasing to God in itself. But your view seems to render these works as what God actually uses ("the means") to actually save people the people, rather than faith alone, which you appear to say, is "created" by these means. From this it is easy for it to become Rome's works salvation. Those kids could renounce Christ, but they still have this thing called "saving faith" placed to them. They must be meritorious, if they are what creates the faith or grace that saves.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by koreahog2005:


Spiritual baptism saves us; physical baptism does not save anyone. Physical baptism pictures death, burial, and resurrection (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3). Those symbols are conveyed by immersion, not sprinkling. Again, baptism is an act of obedience for true disciples (followers) who have understood the gospel, surrendered their lives to Jesus in repentance and faith, and begun the spiritual growth process. Infants are incapable of understanding the gospel, surrendering their lives in repentance and faith, and learning from the Bible. When Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not" (Mark 10:14), He was not discussing baptism. He wanted to physically "touch them" as He blessed them (Mark 10:13).

I agree physical baptism saves no one. Faith alone apprehends the promise of baptism, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." I think both the pastor placing the man in the water or sprinkling water on the man equally convey the proper picture of baptism. Man is purely passive in salvation receiving by faith alone that which is offered by grace alone.

Baptism is not an act at all but a means whereby God bestows His gifts of grace through faith alone. God uses other means also. When Jesus laid his hands on the children and blessed them, by Word and by touch, He was bestowing gifts of grace that could be apprehended only by faith.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Eric B:
I've never heard any Baptist say baptism was "meritorious". It is obedience, that only has any meaning withion a context of the person actually being saved by faith. Just alike any other command in itself. No Baptist says that any work is pleasing to God in itself. But your view seems to render these works as what God actually uses ("the means") to actually save people the people, rather than faith alone, which you appear to say, is "created" by these means. From this it is easy for it to become Rome's works salvation. Those kids could renounce Christ, but they still have this thing called "saving faith" placed to them. They must be meritorious, if they are what creates the faith or grace that saves.

Well, isn't obedience a good work? And aren't good works meritorious for a believer? Baptist may not use the word but they share the same concept with the Papists.

Lutherans would deny that baptism is in any way meritorious, a good work, or an act of obedience. Or that baptism saves any one without faith.

If you reject baptism as a means of grace, you must also reject preaching because God attaches the same promises to preaching that are attached to baptism. But, of course, it is only the sinner's prayer that saves.

The end result of trusting in human works is occuring among the Southern Baptists as it has among the Papists. Human works are praised (surrendering our lives, the purpose-driven life, the decision for Christ, etc.) while God's work in creating faith and saving us according to the abundance of His mercy is ignored.

[ September 01, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[BrotherJoe]

The doctrine of an age of accountability is laughable. Why? Because if it were REALLY true then the most logical conclusion would be to KILL ALL BABIES BEFORE they reach the age so everyone would go to heaven and no one would perish in Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people...lets use our heads.


Brother Joe

 

[koreahog2005]

Brother Joe, if it were possible to kill all the babies in the world, then I believe they would all go to heaven. God would know in advance that the mass killing would occur, and He would make sure that all the babies were elect people. It's impossible to surprise God with such a mass killing. In these days, however, we can say that not all infants are elect. Non-elect infants live past the age of accountability. A person's status cannot change when he reaches the age of accountability. In other words, he cannot be an elect baby and later a non-elect adult. Thus, the only people who die before reaching the age of accountability are elect people. Other elect people and all non-elect people live past the age of accountability.

 

[koreahog2005]

John, can you show me a New Testament passage where sprinkling was the mode of baptism? Can you also show me a New Testament passage where an infant was baptized? Finally, can you show me a New Testament passage where an infant was saved by faith?

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

Can you show me a NT passage where immersion was the mode of baptism? Can you show me a NT passage where infants were excluded from baptism? Can you show me a NT passage where an infant without faith was saved?

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother John said: Can you show me a NT passage where immersion was the mode of baptism?


BROTHER JOE: "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway COMING UP OUT OF THE WATER, he saw the heavens opened," (Mark 1:9-10)

It would not have been possible for Jesus to come "UP" and "OUT" from the water like this verse states unless he first went DOWN and IN in the water.


Brother Joe

 

[koreahog2005]

John, your challenge is fair. I’ll try to answer your questions. You can answer mine after I answer yours.

1. Immersion as mode of baptism

Mark 1:9-10 – “And it came about in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him.” (NASV)

Notice that Jesus was “coming up out of the water.” If sprinkling was the mode, there would be no point in going to a river. James Brooks, professor of New Testament at Bethel Theological Seminary, commented on the passage:

Inasmuch as the word “baptize” means to immerse, the expression “coming up out of the water” almost certainly refers to from beneath the water rather than upon the bank.

(Brooks, “Mark,” The New American Commentary, vol. 23, 1991, pages 42-43)

Acts 8:38-39 – “And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing.”

John Polhill, professor of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, commented on the passage:

Since the verb employed is baptizo, which always carried the idea of total submersion, there is no reason to assume that the eunuch was baptized in any other way than the consistent New Testament pattern of immersion.

(Polhill, “Acts,” The New American Commentary, vol. 26, 1992, page 226)

2. Infants excluded from baptism

To look for a case of infants being excluded from baptism is sort of like looking for a case of infants being excluded from the National Football League draft. It is inconceivable for an infant to be drafted by the National Football League. It was also inconceivable for an infant to be immersed in the New Testament. Immersion was reserved for disciples (Matthew 28:19). Disciples are those who are willing to give up everything to Jesus (Luke 14:33). Disciples are followers. Jesus described them in Luke 9:23: “And He was saying to them all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.' ” Infants are incapable of denying themselves, taking up their crosses daily, and following Jesus.

3. Infants without faith saved

The New Testament does not discuss the salvation of infants dying in infancy. In the Old Testament, David’s comment about going to the dead child (2 Samuel 12:23) indicates that David knew he would see the child again in heaven. It would have been no comfort to go to the dead child’s body. He was discussing going to the resurrected child in heaven some day.

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

1. Immersion/Sprinkling
Even your own expert is not sure NT baptism was by immersion. The NT mode could have been sprinkling, pouring, etc. My expert says baptizo simply means to apply water.

2. Infant baptism
Infants were included in the mass baptism of Acts 2:37, 38. There was no reason to exclude them. Peter says the promise of baptism is not based on works but to as many as the Lord shall call. You are reasoning backwards. Since infants are incapable of the works you deem necessary in order to receive faith, they should not be baptized.

3. Infant salvation
NT does discuss infants who had faith. Matt.18:6, Luke 1:44. David's child was saved in the same way as every other elect person: by faith alone. Mark 16:16.

[ September 02, 2004, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
[ The Holy Spirit calls the unborn, infants, and adults to faith through the Word.

How can new-born infants, who have no concept of words, be called through the Word?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[koreahog2005]

John, concerning immersion you said the following:

Even your own expert is not sure NT baptism was by immersion. The NT mode could have been sprinkling, pouring, etc. My expert says baptizo simply means to apply water.

Both my experts (Polhill and Brooks) were quite sure about immersion. Polhill said, “The verb employed is baptizo, which always carried the idea of total submersion.” Brooks said, “The word ‘baptize’ means to immerse.” What could be clearer? Where did you get the idea that they were “not sure”?

There are two different Greek words that are very clear. The word for “sprinkle” is “rhantizo” and is found in Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21 and in Hebrews 10:22. Some think it is also in Mark 7:4 where “baptizo” is also found:

“And when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.”

In the verse above, the word “baptizo” is used for “washing.” Some texts have “baptizo” for “cleanse,” and other texts have “rhantisontai” which is a form of “rhantizo.” Some think the original text was changed since sprinkling sounded better than immersion. The Greek scholar A.T. Robertson commented on the verse:

Wash themselves (baptiswntai). First aorist middle subjunctive of baptizw, dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put rantiswntai in the text translated "sprinkle themselves" in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms rantiswntai "a manifest emendation," to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating." This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of baptizw, to dip, rantizw, to sprinkle, and eccew, to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of baptiswntai here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches" (kai klinwn) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (baptismouß klinwn) "an incongruous combination." But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, baptismouß, of these vessels." We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches" is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

The above quote can be found online:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mr&chapter=7&verse=4

Obviously, “baptizo” means “immerse,” and “rhantizo” means “sprinkle.”

John, you next said the following:

Infants were included in the mass baptism of Acts 2:37, 38. There was no reason to exclude them. Peter says the promise of baptism is not based on works but to as many as the Lord shall call. You are reasoning backwards. Since infants are incapable of the works you deem necessary in order to receive faith, they should not be baptized.

I see no mention of infants in that passage. It does say that the people there were told by Peter to repent. Infants are incapable of repentance.

John, your final comment follows:

NT does discuss infants who had faith. Matt.18:6, Luke 1:44. David's child was saved in the same way as every other elect person: by faith alone. Mark 16:16.

The Greek word used in Matthew 18:2-5 for “young child” is “paidion” which can also refer in a spiritual sense to adult Christians (1 John 2:18). Jesus in this conversation in Matthew 18 was stressing the importance of humility for his adult disciples, and He told them that they needed to become like children. “These little ones who believe” in verse six refers to adult disciples, not to the single child who was set before them as an object lesson. John Gill commented on verse six:

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones…
Not in age, but are little and mean in their own eyes, and contemptible in the esteem of the world; though otherwise men of great grace, gifts, and usefulness; who may be said to be offended, when they are not received; their persons despised, their ministry rejected, and they reproached and persecuted; and everything done to them to discourage, and cause them to stumble and fall, to drop their profession of Christ, to quit his service, and desert his cause: and that such persons are designed, appears by the following descriptive character of them,

which believe in me;
which cannot be said of infants, or little ones in age, and who also are not capable of offence; but must be understood of adult persons, of such who by faith look unto, lay hold on, and receive the Lord Jesus Christ, as their Saviour and Redeemer, and who make a profession of their faith in him; and chiefly of such who preach the doctrine of faith, who having believed, therefore speak; and who are generally the butt of the contempt, reproach, and persecution of men.

Gill's comment can be found online:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=mt&chapter=18&verse=6

In Matthew 18:5, the phrase “one such child” indicates that Jesus is speaking of adult disciples, not of the child that He used as an object lesson.

In Luke 1:44, John leaped for joy. There is no mention of faith. Why did John leap for joy if he could not intellectually understand the significance of Mary and the baby to whom she would give birth? The answer is simple. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41), and John was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). The Holy Spirit caused John to leap in the womb. John had the capacity to feel joyful emotion, but he did not have the intellectual capacity for faith while he was in the womb. There was no evidence that this was a permanent filling of the Holy Spirit. One must understand that although the Holy Spirit at times filled people prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, He did not permanently indwell the disciples prior to these events. Notice Jesus’ statement and the following comment in John 7:37-39:

“Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, “From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.” ’ But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Before Jesus commanded His disciples to abide in Him (John 15:4), He said to them, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever, that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you” (John 14:16-17). This passage makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was not yet spiritually in them, but He was physically with them already in Jesus.

After Jesus commanded His disciples to abide in Him, He stated, “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgement” (John 16:7-8). The disciples would be able to obey Jesus’ command to spiritually abide in Him (John 15:4) in the future when He was no longer physically present with them. The apostle John often used the word “abide” (meno in Greek) in his Gospel. When he used this word in a spiritual context rather than a physical context, it always referred to a permanent relationship.

John, you mentioned Mark 16:16: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Again, the word “believe” includes the concept of intellectual belief. An infant is incapable of intellectual belief.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church's confession of faith, which has not changed since 1530 defines saving faith as follows:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Augsburg Confession

Infants have this saving faith when they believe that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. The children of Christians should be baptized but not because they have saving faith (which we assume they do) or because baptism saves us(which it does). We baptize infants solely because Christ commands it, "Suffer the little children to come me and forbid them not." </font>[/QUOTE]So, belief as an act is meritorious then,acc to Augsburg? In addition, your statement "baptism saves" comes very close to the RC doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, despite your protestations to the contrary, particularly when you go on to elaborate on it as a method of communication of God's grace - very sacramental soteriology (that no true Baptist could accept) there.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

Both my experts (Polhill and Brooks) were quite sure about immersion

Inasmuch as the word “baptize” means to immerse, the expression “coming up out of the water” almost certainly refers to from beneath the water rather than upon the bank.

I see no mention of infants in that passage. It does say that the people there were told by Peter to repent. Infants are incapable of repentance.

Sorry, I meant Acts 2:38, 39. The people were told the promise of baptism was for their children. If children were not be baptized, Peter would not have mentioned them. In fact, he is directing them to be baptized.

In Matthew 18:5, the phrase “one such child” indicates that Jesus is speaking of adult disciples, not of the child that He used as an object lesson.

It is an object lesson to have the faith of a little child.

John had the capacity to feel joyful emotion, but he did not have the intellectual capacity for faith while he was in the womb.

What was the source of John's joy other than his faith in Christ?

John, you mentioned Mark 16:16: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Again, the word “believe” includes the concept of intellectual belief. An infant is incapable of intellectual belief

I will stick with my KJV, "He that believeth not shall be damned." Most of your arguments are based on fanciful translations and word interpretations from your baptist scholars.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church's confession of faith, which has not changed since 1530 defines saving faith as follows:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Augsburg Confession

Infants have this saving faith when they believe that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake. The children of Christians should be baptized but not because they have saving faith (which we assume they do) or because baptism saves us(which it does). We baptize infants solely because Christ commands it, "Suffer the little children to come me and forbid them not." </font>[/QUOTE]So, belief as an act is meritorious then,acc to Augsburg? In addition, your statement "baptism saves" comes very close to the RC doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, despite your protestations to the contrary, particularly when you go on to elaborate on it as a method of communication of God's grace - very sacramental soteriology (that no true Baptist could accept) there.

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Faith is not meritorious; it receives the merit of Christ.

Would Baptists prefer to rely on the merit of their own preparations and works rather than trust in the promises of scripture attached to preaching and baptism?

For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.

They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
Augsburg Confession

[ September 02, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]